Time: Sat Jul 05 19:50:17 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA25314;
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 19:43:41 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04455;
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 19:43:30 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 19:43:27 -0700
To: crdubo@Juno.com (Craig Smith)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Chief Judge defines "citizenship"!
References: <3.0.3.16.19970705174805.312733fa@pop.primenet.com>
At 10:13 PM 7/5/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>Just finished reading this Post and must wonder if you have ever
>"Recused" a judge based on these observations/ challenges, such as "Oath
>of office","USDC v. DCUS"," Judge paid by Federal Income Tax" etc. etc.
>etc.
Yes, that's what Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF
is all about: Gilbertson sued the district
judge in the DCUS for failing to produce
an oath of office. The rest is history.
You MUST buy and read this brief; it is
the culmination of 7 full years of research.
>
>If so, please tell us of the outcome, If you appealed, and how or when
>you won!
It's before the Circuit Court right now.
The U.S. has until July 18 to respond to
the OPENING BRIEF. Then, we get to
rebut their Reply Brief. So, we are
in the thick of it right now, as I write
this.
Are you interested in becoming a
Distributor for Supreme Law Publishers?
This OPENING BRIEF will be the first of
many excellent publications.
All I need from you right now is a fax
number, and I will fax some confidential
sheets to you asap.
>
>There is so much to this entire game, but you imply simplicitity! Reality
>is reality, so please tell your readers and members of your Law School
>how you would attack these arguments against the Respondent, by the
>"judge", in this instant case, to either recuse the judge for lack of
>jurisdiction, subject matter and personum, classification of
>citizenship, and how you would move this up the ladder so that we could
>receive a qualified response / ruling from the Supreme Court?
I already did. I won't analyze the case
until those 7 points below are answered,
conclusively. Otherwise, we are just
wasting our time on fictions.
I would not have let that case get
that far. I would have done a lot more
ground work, such as filing NOTICE AND DEMAND
FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE of the pleadings
in People v. Boxer, and a ton of other stuff.
We did that in Nebraska recently, and somebody
got to the client (an alcoholic) and persuaded
him to insult me instead. Go figure!
That federal judge is still scratching his head,
even AFTER he issued a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
Believe it or not, that client's previous
Counsel talked him out of a jury trial.
What a colossal error: that is grounds for
attorney malpractice, in my opinion.
Rule 38 says that a jury trial is a fundamental
Right; why would anyone want to waive a
fundamental Right? I don't get it. It's
beginning to look like another case of
"let's frustrate Paul Mitchell, one more time."
For a real "live" case, the Gilbertson
OPENING BRIEF should go down in history
as a classic study. We leveraged it
within 7 days of filing it, and brought
it before another Circuit Court. We need
to do this in ALL Circuits, so that we
can guarantee discrepant rulings. The challenge
to the JSSA is a blockbuster. I found the
Maine Supreme Court decision today which
elaborates on "Right of Election," in exactly
the same language I have used in Gilbertson's
attack on jury selection. That was gratifying,
very gratifying. I will post that research,
tomorrow some time, if I can get it together.
Getting discrepant rulings from the Circuit Courts
will almost guarantee a hearing before the
U.S. Supreme Court. The IRC will die for
vagueness. That is my prediction. Congress
will just need to try another stunt; only,
this time we will be watching. And, if I have my
way, I will be IN Congress, to make sure that
the same thing doesn't happen again.
>
>So many questions, so little time!
That's one of my MAJOR criticisms of the IRC:
it is too terribly complex for ANYONE to
decipher properly. I love it when people
disagree with me, because it proves that
people of common intelligence are unable
to agree on the real meaning of the law. This
test proves that the IRC is null and void
for vagueness. Do you stop for red, and
go for green, in your town?
See what I mean?
>
>Thank you very much for your time and energy!
You are very welcome.
If we don't stop the IRS, they
will succeed in destroying our
country. Mark these words!!
THAT is their very intent.
>
>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 17:48:05 -0700 Paul Andrew Mitchell
>[address in tool bar] writes:
>>Before I would consider reading this alleged ORDER,
>>I would need to know a few things.
>>
>>
>>#1: Has this "judge" executed an oath of office,
>> as required by the Constitution?
>>
>> I reserve the Right to prove that he is in
>> the wrong contract with the American People,
>> even if he has.
>>
>>
>>#2: Was he claiming to preside on the United States
>> District Court, or the District Court of the=20
>> United States?
>>
>> See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton,
>> and Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], for proof that
>> there are two (2) classes of federal district courts.
>>
>>
>>#3: Was his judicial compensation being diminished
>> by federal income taxes during this case?
>>
>> See Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore. =20
>> O'Malley v. Woodrough, which is reported to have
>> overturned Evans, is wrong for two obviously false
>> premises.
>>
>>
>>#4: Did the court have a clear and irrefutable statement
>> of subject matter jurisdiction for the case before it?
>>
>> Federal courts are, in general, presumed to lack=20
>> jurisdiction, until an affirmative showing is made
>> in the official record of the instant case.
>>
>>
>>#5: Has this judge ever accepted any kickbacks from IRS or
>> another source, in violation of 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.?
>>
>> Our information leads us to conclude that the practice
>> of IRS kickbacks to federal judges is extremely widespread.
>> For proof, submit a FOIA for all financial records of the
>> Performance Management and Recognition System, which
>> program was repealed in 1993.
>>
>>#6: Was this "judge" ever a licensed bar member?
>>
>> If he was, he was forever barred from occupying ANY
>> public office anywhere in America, and he also forfeited
>> his citizenship, when he did so. See the original
>> 13th Amendment for the 2 penalties that attach to=20
>> such a Title of Nobility ("ATTORN" is a term from
>> feudal law).
>>
>>#7: Did he guarantee due process of law in the instant case?
>>
>> If he deprived any litigants of due process of law,
>> under color of law, he has violated 18 U.S.C. 242,=20
>> and possibly also 18 U.S.C. 241 for conspiring with
>> the U.S. Attorneys in the instant case, to deprive
>> a litigant of a fundamental Right.
>>
>>
>>Until I can get honest and complete answers to the above
>>questions, I cannot in good faith even bother to read this
>>decision, because I must presume that the judge did NOT
>>have judicial authority. Like jurisdiction, I am entitled
>>to presume that there was no judicial authority until
>>proven, beyond any doubt in my own mind. I have it on the
>>direct spoken word of C.J. Rehnquist that ALL federal judges
>>are currently paying federal income taxes on their judicial
>>compensation. Therefore, none is presently qualified to
>>preside on any federal court within the several states of
>>the Union. The federal zone is another matter entirely.
>>For background, read "The Lawless Rehnquist" in the
>>Supreme Law Library at URL http://www.supremelaw.com.
>>
>>Sorry, but you know the rules of the game as well as anyone.
>>
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>p.s. By the way, I have been before several "chief judges,"
>>and that title doesn't mean anything to me. One in Arizona
>>is very fond of picking his nose in public, and he does not
>>think the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have any
>>legal significance at all; he made this statement in an
>>ORDER denying a procedural stay to one of my clients.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 02:50 PM 7/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D[ Distributed
>>Message=
>> ]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
>>> Type: Not Moderated
>>> Distributed on: 05-JUL-97, 14:50:22
>>>Original Written by: IN:t42usc@juno.com.
>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I
>>am
>>>sovereign, my State is sovereign, and I am not a citizen of the U.S.!
>>> Chief Judge Voorhees, in Federal District, North Carolina,
>>>respectfully disagrees.
>>> The following is from an Order to Comply with IRS Summonses,
>>>responding to several "protestor" challenges, including those of
>>>jurisdiction and State sovereignty. Enjoy.
>>>
>>>>From David R. Myrland.
>>>
>>>
>>>BEGIN QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>>>
>>> "A JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
>>>
>>> 1. The "Foreign State" of North Carolina.
>>>
>>> Respondent (Citizen/"taxpayer") claims that Petitioners (IRS
>>and
>>>agent Kreizel) may enforce neither the Code nor the Summonses against
>>him
>>>because he is a citizen of the State of North Carolina, "a foreign
>>state
>>>with respect to the 'United States,' and . . . therefore . . . and
>>area
>>>'abroad' or outside the 'United States.' This [i.e. North Carolina]
>>is
>>>also considered a foreign country for U.S. revenue purposes." Motion
>>to
>>>Vacate at 3-4. Apparently, as a citizen of the "foreign country" of
>>north
>>>Carolina, Respondent neither resides in nor is a citizen of the
>>United
>>>States of America. As a result, Respondent claims that he is not
>>subject
>>>to an internal revenue tax, the Code, the Collection Summonses issued
>>by
>>>Agent Kreitzel pursuant to =A7 7602, or the territorial jurisdiction
>>of the
>>>Untied States. See id. at 4. No authority is cited by Respondent for
>>this
>>>conclusory allegation of North Carolina's Foreign sovereignty.
>>> "Although the concept of federalism recognizes the dual
>>>sovereignty of the State of North Carolina and the United States of
>>>america, North Carolina is indeed on of the fifty states constituting
>>the
>>>United States of America. (FOOTNOTE 9) See, e.g., Testa v. Katt, 330
>>U.S.
>>>386, 389-91 (1947); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604-05
>>>(1889); U.S. v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 550 (1876); Cohens v.
>>Virginia,
>>>19 U.S. 264, 380-83 (1821). "This State shall ever remain a member
>>of
>>>the American Nation; there is no power on the part of this State to
>>>secede . . . ." N.C.Const.art.I, =A7 4. "Every citizen of this State
>>owes
>>>paramount allegience to the Constitution and government of the United
>>>States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or
>>>subversion thereof can have any binding force." Id. at art.I, =A7 5.
>>"all
>>>persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
>>>jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
>>State
>>>wherein they reside." U.S.Const.amend. XIV, =A7 1.
>>> The fact that Respondent is a citizen of North Carolina does
>>not
>>>relieve him of the rights and obligations created by the laws of the
>>>United States, including the Code. Dennis v. U.S., 660 F.Supp. 870,
>>875
>>>n.2 (C.D. Ill. 1987) ("[T]he taxing power of the United States of
>>America
>>>extends to every individual who is a citizen or resident of this
>>>nation."); Sloan v. U.S., 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1073-74 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
>>>(Secretary may issue summonses to obtain information about ANY
>>potential
>>>tax liability), aff'd. in part, dismissed in part, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th
>>>Circuit 1987), aff'd. 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991), cert.den. ___
>>U.S.
>>>___, 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); Channel v. U.S., No. C88-0118P(CS), 1988
>>U.S.
>>>Dost. LEXIS 16904 at *5 (W.D. Ky. August 9, 1988)(opinion by
>>Magistrate
>>>Judge King). To paraphrase Justice Willis Van Devanter, when
>>Congress, in
>>>the exertion of the power confided to it by the sixteenth amendment,
>>>(FOOTNOTE 10) adopted by the Code, it spoke for all the people and
>>all
>>>the States, and thereby established a policy for all. That policy is
>>as
>>>much the policy of North Carolina as if the Code had emanated from
>>the
>>>North Carolina General Assembly, and should be respected accordingly
>>by
>>>the citizens and courts of the State of North Carolina. Second
>>Employers'
>>>Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912). See also, Claflin v.
>>Houseman, 93
>>>U.S. 130, 136 (1876) ("The laws of the United States are laws in the
>>>several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts
>>>thereof as the State laws are.") Respondent's "foreign state of North
>>>Carolina" argument is patently frivolous, (FOOTNOTE 11) and is hereby
>>>rejected as a basis for quashing the Collection Summonses in
>>question."
>>>
>>> 2. Respondent's Nonresident Alien Status.
>>>
>>> Respondent also challenges Petitioners' jurisdiction to serve
>>the
>>>Collection Summonses and to assess a tax liability by asserting the
>>>nonresident alien status under 26 USC =A7 865(g)(1)(B).(FOOTNOTE 12)
>>The
>>>"nonresident alien"status is actually defined in 26 USC =A7
>>7701(b)(1)(B)
>>>as "[a]n individual . . . [who] is neither a citizen of the United
>>States
>>>nor a resident of the Untied States (within the meaning of
>>subparagraph
>>>(A))." See also 26 CFR =A7 1.871-2(a).
>>> Respondent has failed to produce evidence demonstrating he is
>>>indeed a nonresident alien. First, as to Respondent's citizenship,
>>the
>>>record is void of evidence showing that Respondent was born or
>>>naturalized somewhere other than the United States. U.S. Const.amend.
>>>XIV, =A7 1. (FOOTNOTE 13) Second, Respondent's "Declaration of
>>Status" does
>>>not constitute a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of United
>>>States nationality under 8 USC =A7 1481. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444
>>U.S.
>>>252, 260 (1980); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 268 (1967); Kahane v.
>>>Secretary of State, 700 F.Supp. 1162, 1166 (D. D.C. 1988). (FOOTNOTE
>>14)
>>>Third, Respondent has failed to satisfy the "lawfully admitted for
>>>permanent residence," "substantial presence," or "first year
>>election"
>>>residency tests under 26 USC =A7 7701(b)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii),
>>thereby
>>>precluding his qualification as a nonresident alien. Because
>>Respondent
>>>is admittedly both a citizen and a resident of North Carolina, and
>>North
>>>Carolina is on of the United States, the Court can only presume, in
>>the
>>>absence of any contradictory evidence, that Respondent is a citizen
>>of
>>>the Untied States.=20
>>> Even if the Respondent could demonstrate that he was a
>>>nonresident alien, he would still be subject to the Code's
>>nonresident
>>>alien individual provisions, 26 USC =A7 871 et seq. The uncontested
>>>evidence presented at the hearing established that Respondent had
>>>substantial income from real estate business in Florida, another one
>>of
>>>the United States, between 1980 and 1982. That would constitute
>>taxable
>>>United States source income under 26 USC =A7 871. Furthermore,
>>>
>>> every nonresident alien individual . . . who is
>>engaged
>>> in business or trade in the United States . . . or
>>who
>>> has [taxable] income . . . shall make a return on
>>Form
>>> 1040NR, . . . even though (a) he has no income
>>> which is effectively connected with the conduct of a
>>> trade or business in the United States, (b) he has no
>>> income from sources within the United States, or (c)
>>> his income is exempt from income tax by reason of an
>>> income tax provision or any section of the Code.
>>>
>>>26 CFR =A7 1.6012-1(b). See also 26 CFR =A7 1.6015(i)-1(b)
>>(requiring=
>> certain
>>>nonresident aliens to file declarations of estimated income tax). If,
>>as
>>>set forth in his "Declaration of Status," Respondent has no taxable
>>>United States source income, he may still be subject to taxation on
>>>income derived from sources OUTSIDE of the United States. 26 USC
>>=A7=A7=
>> 862,
>>>863(b). Respondent has failed to explain how, if he is indeed a
>>>nonresident alien, these provisions would be applicable to him.
>>> Finally, the IRS is entitled to use its authority under =A7
>>7602 to
>>>determine the accuracy of Respondent's alleged nonresident alien
>>status
>>>and any assertion that the Code's nonresident alien provisions do not
>>>apply to him. See e.g., Kis, 658 F.2d at 537; Sloan, 621 F.Supp. at
>>1074.
>>>The Court concludes that the Summonses may not be quashed on the
>>basis of
>>>Respondent's alleged nonresident alien status."
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #9 reads:
>>>
>>> "So long as the separate organization of the members be not
>>> abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional necessity
>>for
>>> local purposes, through it should be in perfect subordination
>>to
>>> the general authority of the Union, it would still be, in
>>fact
>>>and in theory, an association of States,or a confederacy. The
>>>proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of
>>the
>>>State Governments, makes them constituent parts of
>>the
>>>nationally sovereignty by allowing them a direct
>>representation
>>>in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain
>>>exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.
>>This
>>>full corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with
>>the
>>>idea of a Federal Government.
>>>
>>> "The Federalist No.9, at 55 (A. hamilton) (J. Cooke ed.1961)
>>>(emphasis added) See also, "The Federalist" No. 33, at 208 (A.
>>Hamilton)
>>>("CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only
>>>admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this
>>>branch of power, of the State authority to that of the Union.")."
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #10 quotes in full the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #11 reads:
>>>
>>> "The contention that appellants are not taxpayers because they are
>>'free
>>>born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law 'de
>>>jure' citizens of Kansas' is frivolous." U.S. v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746,
>>>750-51 (10th Cir.1989). See also U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937
>>(9th
>>>Cir. 1986) (an "absolute, freeborn and natural individual" is still a
>>>"person" under the Code and thus is subject to its provisions).
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #12 reads: "Respondent sets forth his residency status in
>>the
>>>following statement:
>>>
>>> I, Joe Lunchbucket, declare that: I am an American inhabiting
>>> North Carolina State; I am a Non-Resident to the United
>>States
>>> [26 USC 865(g)(1)(B)]; I have never worked for domestic
>>> corporation; I have never filed a Form 1078 or an equivalent
>>as
>>> prescribed in 26 CFR 1.1441-5, that would rebut my
>>> non-resident status [26 CFR 1.871-4(b)]; I never had
>>any
>>>gross income attributable to 26 CFR 872(a)(1) or (2); I am
>>>excluded from being required to obtain and submit and
>>identifying
>>>number [26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)]; should I have income from
>>sources
>>> within the Untied States, I am still not subject to a
>>withholding
>>>of any kind as it is not deemed to be income.
>>>
>>> Therefore I am neither now nor ever been subject to the
>>> jurisdiction of the United States for "internal
>>revenue."
>>>
>>>Asseveration, Declaration of Status, Dated September XXXXX, attached
>>to
>>>Demand I."
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #13 reads:=20
>>>
>>> "See also Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 74 (1873) ("He
>>must
>>>reside within a State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only
>>>necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States
>>to
>>>be a citizen of the Union."); Factor v. Pennington Press, inc., 230
>>>F.Supp. 906, 909 (N.D. Ill. 1963) ("But in order to be a citizen of a
>>>state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the
>>>united States."); Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lamson Bros. & Co.,
>>42
>>>F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (S.D. Iowa 1941)("Under our system of government
>>and
>>>individual citizen of a State is also a citizen of the untied
>>>States...").
>>>
>>>FOOTNOTE #14 reads:
>>>
>>> "Even if the "declaration of Status" is sufficient to
>>relinquish
>>>Respondent's United States nationality, the Code provides for the
>>fully
>>>graduated taxation of all United States source income for the ten
>>years
>>>preceding the date of such expatriation, or September 19, 1991,
>>unless
>>>Respondent can prove the avoidance of taxes was not one of the
>>principal
>>>purposes for his expatriation. See Di Portanova v. U.S., 690 F.2d
>>169,
>>>176-78 (Ct.Cl.1982); 26 USC =A7 877. hence, Respondent's tax
>>liability
>>>could date back as far as 1980, the first year questioned by the
>>issued
>>>Collection Summonses."
>>>
>>>END QUOTE OF ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IRS SUMMONSES.
>>>
>>>Because I can identify profound protection within the Code itself, I
>>>don't make the challenges of jurisdiction and State sovereignty. I
>>hope
>>>this look at the Federal view of the arguments has helped you. In
>>Court
>>>twice now, the IRS has been unable to prove the Secretary of the
>>>Treasury's authority to operate outside D.C., as required under 4 USC
>>72.
>>>
>>>
>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>To subscribe: send a message to the fwolist@sportsmen.net
>>>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE
>>to
>>>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
>>> email: Not Moderated@sportsmen.net or listmgmt@sportsmen.net
>>>For info about this system and its lists email: info@sportsmen.net
>>>
>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
>>>via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal
>>witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C.
>>Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256:
>>24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586
>>CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library
>>now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its
>>best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal
>>zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o
>>this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We
>>shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns
>>eternal.
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional
>>spacing.]
>>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail